Caz wrote:There are many Buddha's but there is only one Buddha Shakyamuni and surely in order for it to considered genuine Buddhadharma and worthy it has a lineage which arises with him as the founder, Even our Tantric lineages arise from Vajradhara who is the enjoyment body.

Where does the lineage of Bon arise from ? The Dark magics of evil doers and powerful forces such as the Naga's this was the original Bon that has been suppressed to an extent but by accounts it does still exist in the outskirts of distant places.

Anything that arises from such things is not worthy of refuge.

Caz,

I'd like to know your opinion on the appearance and testimony of Buddhas other than Shakyamuni in the Mahayana Sutras. For instance, the Buddha Ancient Treasures appears in the Lotus Sutra, and gives (very brief) teachings. He and Shakyamuni appear together as one, sitting together in a stupa. Is Ancient Treasures an appropriate source of refuge, in your mind? If not, how is he different from Shakyamuni?

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
More pertinent, however, is the fact that Bon contains every last one of the liberative elements of Vajrayana and Dzogchen and nothing at the definitive level of its teaching that contradicts the Buddha's Dharma. If those elements don't lead to buddhahood for Bonpos, how could they lead to buddhahood for Buddhists?

Namgyal wrote:I'll dispute with anyone who defames other religious practitioners including sectarian Gelugpa. I don't deny that there is a small conservative faction within the Gelug whose views are rigid and discriminatory, but this is not the view of the vast majority, of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or of Je Tsongkhapa.

Whatever activity you engage in, and whatever your purpose, make offerings and supplications to the three jewels, forsaking any other worldly methods
Whatever activity you engage in, and whatever your purpose, rely on and do that which accords with the three jewels, such as making offerings to them. But never do that which does not accord with the three jewels, such as relying on the Bon Religion. Always entrust yourself to the three jewels.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:
So far the only argument against the opinion of the founders of the Nyingma, Kagyu, Kadampa and Gelug schools (and probably Sakya too), is that Bon has a great many features in common with Buddhism.

Tsongkhapa's view must be considered of course (more like researched).

However I would argue that the prevalence of a kind of positive stance toward Bon shown by Khyentse Wango and Jamgon Kongtrul trumps everything. This does not mean that they were advocating for Bon as a fifth Buddhist tradition, merely that they did not dismiss Bon participants and students. And most significantly for our time, the actions of HHDL wrt to Bon (which is partly political to strengthen relations amongst the Tibetan people but this is apparently not the only factor). The actions of these great enlightened beings for me trumps everything.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

Konchog1 wrote:Well, then it's not Bon anymore is it? It's a fifth school of Buddhism with Bon characteristics.

Bon has changed since Tsongkhapa. Tibet as changed since Tsongkhapa. The world has changed since Tsongkhapa. But, unfortunately, some people will remain sectarians for lifetimes to come yet. Aversion-attachment, aversion-attachment all the way down to the lowest hells. Seems like the whole Rime movement (late 19th Century) bypassed them as they remained frozen in their (early) 15th century religious/philosophical views.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Konchog1 wrote:
So far the only argument against the opinion of the founders of the Nyingma, Kagyu, Kadampa and Gelug schools (and probably Sakya too), is that Bon has a great many features in common with Buddhism.

Tsongkhapa's view must be considered of course (more like researched).

However I would argue that the prevalence of a kind of positive stance toward Bon shown by Khyentse Wango and Jamgon Kongtrul trumps everything. This does not mean that they were advocating for Bon as a fifth Buddhist tradition, merely that they did not dismiss Bon participants and students. And most significantly for our time, the actions of HHDL wrt to Bon (which is partly political to strengthen relations amongst the Tibetan people but this is apparently not the only factor). The actions of these great enlightened beings for me trumps everything.

Kirt

Please provide citations.

gregkavarnos wrote:

Konchog1 wrote:Well, then it's not Bon anymore is it? It's a fifth school of Buddhism with Bon characteristics.

Bon has changed since Tsongkhapa. Tibet as changed since Tsongkhapa. The world has changed since Tsongkhapa. But, unfortunately, some people will remain sectarians for lifetimes to come yet. Aversion-attachment, aversion-attachment all the way down to the lowest hells. Seems like the whole Rime movement (late 19th Century) bypassed them as they remained frozen in their (early) 15th century religious/philosophical views.

So according to you, the Gelug is no longer relevant. Since, the other three schools are older than the Gelug, according to you all of Tibetan Buddhism is not longer relevant.

If say no "TB is still relevant", then how do we determine what is relevant or not? By your whim?

By the way, Lord Tsongkhapa had Gurus from every school of TB. The Gelug is essentially the Kadampa school mixed with teachings and lineages from the other three. Lord Tsongkhapa was 'non-sectarian' before it became a mere fad.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Lhug-Pa wrote:Black/Old Bön may be in only some aspects based on Yungdrung Bön,

No it is not.

Well it is in that Yungdrung Bön was "first" in two senses: A) Yungdrung as you know means 'Eternal' or Unchanging and B) according to Yungdrung Bön, Yungdrung Bön began in this cycle about 18,000 years ago. So what I'm saying in this sense is that without Yungdrung Bön appearing on this planet 18,000 years ago, Black Bön would have never come about, for better or for worse; even though there was likely very little remnants from the original Yungdrung Bön to be found in the corrupted Black Bön schools (although "Black" doesn't always necessarily imply negativity according to Vajranatha).

(And like you said, Yungdrung Bön as it is taught now, is a Sarma school)

18,000 years may or may not be literal, although I personally don't find it far-fetched at all. Contemporary scientists keep having to change their official view on the age of humans and human culture all the time.

And interestingly, it is said that Heruka Bhagavan Sri Ngondzog Gyalpo taught here over 5,000 years ago.

"The Bon traditions with incorrect views were suppressed,
And those with the authentic view further established."

Such was the activity of Buddha Padmasambhava.

It looks like there that Guru Rinpoche was distinguishing Yungdrung Bönpo's from the groups that practiced Black Bön only.

mutsuk wrote:White Bon and New Bon are not the same. And New Bon is a very special lineage which is based on Drenpa Namkha and Vairocana. Contrary to what people usually believe, Padmasambhava plays a very secondary role in this.

Ah, you're right.

Then Yungdrung Bön also includes White Bön?

And when people say "Old Bön", are they usually referring to "Black Bön"? Or do some people say "Old Bön" as to refer to Yungdrung Bön?

From what I understand, Old Bön usually refers to the Black Bön groups.

mutsuk wrote:These people have a background of prior zealots who were prompt in criticizing Bon without opening any Bonpo book. This is a trademark frequent among uneducated Geluks.

True indeed.

It's also interesting that Bön as you pointed out has in a sense more in common with Gelug than it does Nyingma.

Although like I said before, Yungdrung Bön expresses the essence of the teachings of the Buddha Shakyamuni more than Gelug, Sakya, and Kagyu do; considering that Dzogchen is the main teaching of Yungdrung Bön and that the Buddha Shakyamuni is one of the Twelve Dzogchen Teachers.

mutsuk wrote:Well Bon follows the four seals, etc. It is Buddhist since it follows the teachings of a Sangyé (sangs-rgyas), a Buddha. If we were to accept Caz and Konchog rantings, displaying their traditional hate toward Bon, then applying the same criteria to their lineage would certainly surprise them. Shakyamuni never taught Tantras so all the Geluk tantras are taught by someone else and according to these 2 guys criteria then these are not the teachings of a Buddha since they were taught by someone else. And it's no use to bring the Sambhogakaya issue in it, it has no historical value. From a Theravadin point of view, the Geluk Buddhism is Bonpo....

True indeed.

Sangyé (sangs-rgyas) teaches the teachings that lead to Liberation from samsara, whether we say Chös or Bön.

Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Mon May 27, 2013 8:22 pm, edited 5 times in total.

I agree with Mutsuk that before forming and propagating a firm opinion about Bon, one really must read the available scholarly literature, such as sources by those scholars cited by Mutsuk; otherwise one will probably just be repeating poorly-informed prejudice, making oneself sound rather ignorant. However, if you are honest, Mutsuk, you will acknowledge that these scholars' rejecting the crude caricatures of Bon that have been passed down among some Chos traditions does not mean that they accept some modern Bonpos' own internal accounts of their origins and history. Further, I believe Karmay, himself a Bonpo and an excellent scholar, has expressed disbelief in the traditional dating of Shenrab Miwo to 18,000 years ago (but I'm away from my library, so I can't find a reference for you now). It might be useful to keep in mind that there is not just one monolithic Bon Tradition; in Yunnan, for example, there are people who consider their religious traditions as having come from Shenrab, but who are enthusiastic animal sacrificers.

As to the question of whether Bon and Chos can be practiced simultaneously, clearly, the best thing to do is to ask one's own teacher. There are some teachers of Chos who would say "definitely not!". I have heard from a student of Urgyen Tulku that he said if you wanted to practice Bon, you could not be his student (this is secondhand information, so I can't be sure about it). Many Chospa lamas look like they ate a frog if one even mentions Bon, but I have never dared ask why. On the other hand, Tenzin Wangyal had no objection to my attending lectures by him, even though he knew I was a Chospa, and if I am not completely mistaken, I saw several Bonpo monks sitting alongside the Nyingmapas at one of Dudjom Rinpoche's empowerments long ago. Kongtrul included a few Bonpo texts in the Rinchen Terdzod (but he took some flak for it).

Aside from these considerations, it would seem to be very difficult to practice Chos and Bon at the same time in any depth, just as it would be hard to thoroughly practice, say, the Kalacakra sadhanas and the Longchen Nyingthig system at one time, and reap any significant results.

tingdzin wrote:It might be useful to keep in mind that there is not just one monolithic Bon Tradition; in Yunnan, for example, there are people who consider their religious traditions as having come from Shenrab, but who are enthusiastic animal sacrificers.

Well this is "Black Bön" no? Or is of the more negative aspect of Black Bön.

Anyway, I don't deny that Samten Karmay is a top-notch scholar; and yet like I said above, 18,000 years may or may not have a literal aspect. I personally think it would be myopic to be overly-skeptical about its literalness though. The again, I find it very myopic to take the Biblical books literally; however we're not talking about the Bible here are we.

mutsuk wrote:...my references are Dan Martin, Henk Blezer, Samten Karmay, Charles Ramble, Jean-Luc Achard and a few others. They are leading scholars in Bon studies. My opinion is based on reading their work and Bonpo works directly.

According to me Gelug triumphalism is no longer relevant. HHDL is a shining example of a non-sectarian Gelugpa. That is why he is respected by everybody, except for a few dogged sectarians.

By the way, Lord Tsongkhapa had Gurus from every school of TB. The Gelug is essentially the Kadampa school mixed with teachings and lineages from the other three. Lord Tsongkhapa was 'non-sectarian' before it became a mere fad.

I think I've had enough of this conversation.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Lhug-Pa wrote:
Well it is in that Yungdrung Bön was "first" in two senses: A) Yungdrung as you know means 'Eternal' or Unchanging and B) according to Yungdrung Bön, Yungdrung Bön began in this cycle about 18,000 years ago. So what I'm saying in this sense is that without Yungdrung Bön appearing on this planet 18,000 years ago, Black Bön would have never come about, for better or for worse; even though there was likely very little remnants from the original Yungdrung Bön to be found in the corrupted Black Bön schools

Well this does not fit with how Bon envisions its own history. According to Bon, Yungdrung Bon is the Bon of Tönpa Shenrab and Tönpa Shenrab came to Tibet once where he is said to have converted Bonpos there. These Bonpos were from the Old Bon. So Old Bon which has nothing to do with modern Bon (Yungdrung Bon) pre-existed at a time before Yungdrung Bon.
Whatever old material dealing with "Bon" in general and dating from Dunhuang that we have belongs to Old Bon, there was no Yungdrung Bon at the time, or at least no reference to it in the mss available from the Dunhuang caches. As to the date of 18,000 years, it has no historical value at all. It is a number which has another aim and should not be taken as a litteral one.

Vajranatha's fancies about Bon have no historical background at all. He is not an historian and I would not trust a second most of his views about Bon, be it Yungdrung or Old or whatever.

(And like you said, Yungdrung Bön as it is taught now, is a Sarma school)

Sure, modern Yungdrung Bon is a Sarma School, probably the closest to Geluks. They have similar curriculums and tantric ideas, not to mention prasangikas philosophy, etc. The only difference in the training of the two schools is that Yungdrung Bon has Dzogchen at the end of the curriculum.

18,000 years may or may not be literal,

It should not be taken literally, it comes from a confused calculation taking into account Shen-years and conflicting early sources differing in the year Tönpa Shenrab was born. Sticking to it will only bring in confusion. I know Yongdzin Rinpoche holds it very tightly and considers it nearly as a doctrinal data but, hey, there was no civilization as that described in OLmo Lungring in that part of the world (or any other part of the world) 18,000 years ago.

And interestingly, it is said that Heruka Bhagavan Sri Ngondzog Gyalpo taught here over 5,000 years ago.

This is faith, not history. We have not a single historical document dating back 5000 years ago mentionning Ngondzok Gyelpo...

It looks like there that Guru Rinpoche was distinguishing Yungdrung Bönpo's from the groups that practiced Black Bön only.

Yes he does, but there was no such things as Yungdrung Bonpos and their monasteries, canon, etc. during the time of Guru Rinpoche. There is not a single historical evidence of Yungdrung Bon existing before the post-dynastic era. No ruins of former monasteries, etc. If you look at John Bellezza's paper in the RET (http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/colle ... _19_03.pdf) you will have a surprising picture of Tönpa Shenrab according to some of the earliest sources mentioning him (and quite in conformity with the scanty sources mentioning him in the Dunhuang documents).

Then Yungdrung Bön also includes White Bön?

White Bon is not a doxographical entity in Bon works. It is a buddhist expression which was rejected by Bonpos themselves. However, in Eastern Tibet, you will find Bon works using that expression (zhwa dkar g.yung drung bon, Eternal Bon white Hats) which is probably derived from it. However, normally Bonpos don't use that. They use: Old Bon, Eternal Bon, and New Bon.

And when people say "Old Bön", are they usually referring to "Black Bön"? Or do some people say "Old Bön" as to refer to Yungdrung Bön?

I don't know which "people" you are referring to here. As said above, Bonpos use: Old Bon, Eternal Bon and New Bon.

From what I understand, Old Bön usually refers to the Black Bön groups.

Most certainly.

It's also interesting that Bön as you pointed out has in a sense more in common with Gelug than it does Nyingma.

Sure, Bon is a Geluk school which has Dzogchen in its curriculum. mNyam-med Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan played a crucial role in re-formating Bon according to monastic criteria (before that Bon was mostly handed over through lay families or familial clans). His encounter with Tsongkhapa and the praise that Tsongkhapa wrote to him are important elements that shaped this monastic form of Bon (even if there were of course monastic rules and a very long monastic history in Bon prior to that).

Although like I said before, Yungdrung Bön expresses the essence of the teachings of the Buddha Shakyamuni more than Gelug, Sakya, and Kagyu do; considering that Dzogchen is the main teaching of Yungdrung Bön and that the Buddha Shakyamuni is one of the Twelve Dzogchen Teachers.

This comes from late termas (14th century at best). Before that Shakyamuni is not associated with Dzogchen at all. You have that list in Dorje Lingpa's lTa ba klong-yangs for instance but this list is probably influenced by a non-similar list from Bon. Other than that, Nyingthiks do NOT abound in references to these 12 teachers. There are some, sure, but it's not as widespread or frequent as one may think it is. I guess you have more Dzogchen cycles which do not mention that list than the contrary.

Sangyé (sangs-rgyas) teaches the teachings that lead to Liberation from samsara, whether we say Chös or Bön.

Sure but personally I don't trust that distinctions between Chos and Bon, Chospa and Bonpo, etc. Bon is Buddhist because it follows the teachings of a Buddha, it is a Sarma school now and one of the most active religious tradition in Eastern Tibet nowadays.

tingdzin wrote: However, if you are honest, Mutsuk, you will acknowledge that these scholars' rejecting the crude caricatures of Bon that have been passed down among some Chos traditions does not mean that they accept some modern Bonpos' own internal accounts of their origins and history.

Sure, I never implied that. I don't think any of these scholars accept the traditional views of Bon about Bon.

in Yunnan, for example, there are people who consider their religious traditions as having come from Shenrab, but who are enthusiastic animal sacrificers.

Sure, I would bet that this is one of the pre-Yungdrung Bon (post-dynastic) Bon traditions that escaped the influence of Bon itself, although there are influences of local buddhism (crypto-tibeto-chinese) in it.

Aside from these considerations, it would seem to be very difficult to practice Chos and Bon at the same time in any depth, just as it would be hard to thoroughly practice, say, the Kalacakra sadhanas and the Longchen Nyingthig system at one time, and reap any significant results.

Most certainly, but there are counter-examples. In the Gar founded by Nyagla Pema Düdül, there were groups practicing both lineages (Nyingma and Bon). They welcomed Shardza and received his transmission. Tsewang Gyurmé, the son of Dechen Lingpa, handed them over a large part of his father's termas, as well as his own compositions (on the Rigdzin Gondu, etc.). There are other examples, even in Geluk groups, such as Brag-dkar Rinpoche and some of his disciples who were very eager to receive Shardza's transmission of A-khrid and other teachings (including the dBal-phur lineage going back to dBal 'bar sTag-lag-can), etc. Of course, these people are of another moral fibre than ignorant reductionists like Kongchog1 & co.

According to me Gelug triumphalism is no longer relevant. HHDL is a shining example of a non-sectarian Gelugpa. That is why he is respected by everybody, except for a few dogged sectarians.

By the way, Lord Tsongkhapa had Gurus from every school of TB. The Gelug is essentially the Kadampa school mixed with teachings and lineages from the other three. Lord Tsongkhapa was 'non-sectarian' before it became a mere fad.

I think I've had enough of this conversation.

Don't worry about it. You'll probably win an argument off me in the future.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:Don't worry about it. You'll probably win an argument off me in the future.

I wasn't interested in "winning" the argument, I ended the discussion because it was just too boring. It's pretty pointless having a discussion with somebody that uses a single source, which they consider infallible.

PS In reference to the cartoon you posted: I am not taking the "ball" with me, the thread is still here, and open, for you to play your childish sectarian game.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Why are Je Tsongkhapa opinions of early 15th Century Bon practices so important? It seems obvious to me that he only canned them because they were viable competitors at the time he was establishing the Gelugs. So I personally don't give an expletive about his opinions. Why should I care about Tibetan 15th Century (sectarian) religious politics anway? I mean really! Seems to be a case of Mara making work for idle minds.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

This is recited daily by all Bonpos following the Menri tradition.
But there were many other Geluk masters who showed interest (and even more) in Bon. Brag-dkar rinpoche (Brag dkar sprul sku Blo bzang dpal ldan bstan ‘dzin snyan grags, 1866-1928) for instance received numerous Bon teachings, spread them in his monastery and also taught Geluk stuff in Bon monasteries (at least in sTeng-chen dgon-pa). Things are not as skimpy and narrow as Konchog1 would like them to be. You can also see for yourself the reference to the fame A-lags bsTan pa dkon-mchog rinpoche, a Geluk master who became a student of Shardza Rinpoche and who, too, reached Rainbow Body at the end of his life...:http://www.rgbm123.com/history/606/

There's a biography of GR by him prepared("revealed") according to the bsGrags-pa bon-lugs tradition (i.e. New Bon). It has been translated at least twice in western languages (french and english). Khyentse Wangpo was so interested in Bon that he financed the printing (on xylogrpahic boards) of all 13 volumes of Termas revealed by bDe-chen gling-pa, one of his Bonpo masters. In return Dechen Lingpa gave him a gigantic volume of Terdze (gter-rdzas, terma substances) which were kept in Dzongsar. Much later, Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö heard about Shardza's coming to Dergué and invited him to teach in Dzongsar. There Shardza gave the transmission of his dByings-rig-mdzod, after which Khyentse Rinpoche gave him back half of the Terdze that Dechen Lingpa had given to the first Khyentse. After this transmission, Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö had all the monks assembled in the main courtyard of Dzongsar and forbid any of them to say bad things about Bon, advising them to make sure they keep their samayas pure.

And this Jamyang khyentse Wangpo, and his incarnation Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro
were both masters of every single lineage extant. Not only had they studied them, they
practiced and accomplished them. They were the go to experts for Nyingma, Kagyu,
Sakya, Gelug and Jonang. So to the extent that honored whatever aspects of Bon that
are in harmony with Buddhism, that is so. They are the experts beyond dispute.